570 

L5 

B455 

opy 1 




AMERICAN INCONSISTENCIES IN | 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND THE ] 

OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED i 



BY THIS WAR 




I 

C 

I 

i 
i 
j 

i 

i 
i 
i 
i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 
I 
I 
i 

AN ADDRESS 1 

BY 

HOMER ALBERS 

Dean of Boston University Law School 

Before the Men's Club. All Souls Church. Braintree, Mass. 

November 14. 1917 



AMERICAN INCONSISTENCIES IN 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND THE 

OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED 

BY THIS WAR 




AN ADDRESS 

BY 

HOMER ALBERS 

Dean of Boston University Law School 

Before the Men's Club, All Souls Church, Braintree, Mass. 

November 14, 1917 






6^ 



By TratiBfer 

SEP 24. 1923 




HE United States of America is the country in which we 
live, and which we love. It is the country which, during 
the period of its existence, has contributed more than has 
any other to the advantage of mankind; more in material 
things, and more in the teachings of self-government accom- 
panied by national self-control. It is the country of free- 
dom of thought and of speech ; of. decent living and voluntary united 
action. 

We are nationally optimistic, sometimes bombastic; generous, 
sometimes extravagant; enthusiastic, sometimes impulsive; sympa- 
thetic, sometimes to the extent of being meddlesome in the affairs of 
others. 

We are now in a great war. It is a difficult task which we have 
undertaken. If Germany wins, the world will be her subject. The 
very statement of the danger shows the need of preventing such calam- 
ity. We simply must prevent Germany from winning. But even 
while we fight to win, we should begin to think of what we are going to 
accomplish by winning; what is going to make the war most nearly 
worth while; not only to preserve our liberty and our rights, but to 
snatch some real good out of this horrible evil. 

To do this we should first pay regard to history. To get ourselves 
in the proper frame of mind we should consider some of our own mis- 
takes and inconsistencies: not for the purpose of mere fault-finding, but 
so that we may profit by our mistakes. Loyalty does not mean blind- 
ness. Loyalty which is worth while means not only to save our country 
from present disaster, but to guide her to greater prosperity and to 
justice. Unless during this period of war, prior to the peace negotia- 
tions, we educate ourselves for the desired results of victory, that 
victory may be empty; may not achieve all that it should; may leave 
us open to like or even greater dangers from other sources. 

Let us consider together whether the inconsistencies of the past 
should not warn us against a too ready acceptance of plausible views 
which sound altruistic but which are essentially illogical ; or of doctrines 
which are presently pleasing, but ultimately destructive of other 
doctrines more essential to our welfare. 

In 1812, Great Britain, being then at war with France, stopped 
American vessels on the high seas, searched the vessels for British 
subjects, or those whom England claimed to be British subjects, took 
them by force from the American vessels and impressed them into the 
British service. And this, although these alleged British subjects were 



rendering no unneutral service, and when they were upon a neutral ves- 
sel sailing from one neutral port to another neutral port. (45 MASS. 
HIST. SOCIETY REP. 508.) 

America claimed that Great Britain had no right to stop a neutral 

vessel and to take therefrom even British subjects, much less American 
citizens, and hence declared war against Great Britain, and what we 
call the War of 1812 was the result. 

The Treaty of Peace ending the war of 1812 did not mention the 
cause of the war, but left the matter an absolutely open question. 

During our civil war, two non-combatants representing the South 
sailed from Havana on the British Mail Steamship TRENT bound for 
Southampton, England. On November 8, 1861, the next day after the 
ship left Havana, she was overhauled in the Bahama Channel by an 
American Man-of-War under the command of Captain Wilkes. After 
the American ship had fired shot and shell the TRENT hove to, was 
boarded by sailors and marines from the American ship, and Mason 
and Slidell were by force taken from the ship and imprisoned in Fort 
Warren, Boston Harbor. When the knowledge of this fact came to our 
country, the people went wild with delight. The Secretary of the Navy 
(Welles) sent a congratulatory letter to Captain Wilkes: Boston gave 
him a banquet at which Governor Andrews and the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Judicial Court spoke with enthusiasm, and the National 
House of Representatives gave a vote of thanks to Captain Wilkes. 
The press of the country was almost unanimous in expressing its satis- 
faction and joy over this capture. The Boston Transcript, the Adver- 
tiser, Herald, New York Tribune, the New York Herald, the Times and 
Evening Post, — practically all of the important papers, lauded Captain 
Wilkes and praised his conduct. I am not criticising these papers. I 
am merely stating the facts. The newspapers voiced the general 
opinion. 

Now please note exactly what we did, as compared with what we 
claimed in 1812. We stopped a neutral vessel sailing from one neutral 
port to another neutral port, searched her, and seized by force non- 
combatants (but citizens of our belligerent opponent) engaged upon 
no unneutral business. Yet the people of the country at that time would 
have voted, ten to one, to go to war with Great Britain when Great 
Britain protested against the act. 

Great Britain did protest, and contended that a vessel in good faith 
running from one neutral port to another neutral port coiild not "egally 
be interfered with. For example, the Duke of Argyle in writing to 



Senator Sumner on January 10, 1862, stated that under such circum- 
stances Great Britain contended that such a vessel could not contain 
contraband of war, if the vessel sailed from a neutral port to a neutral 
port. France made the same contention (see letter of Thouvenal to 
Mercier, December 3, 1861, 47 MASS. HIST. SOCIETY). 

Neither Great Britain nor France contended that a belligerent had 
no right to stop a neutral vessel; they admitted that right; but con- 
tended that the right to stop was solely for the purpose of ascertaining 
whether the vessel was in good faith neutral, and in good faith sailing 
from one neutral port to another neutral port. Thus the Duke of 
Argyle further wrote to Senator Sumner: "If a vessel is really neutral, 
and her destination is really neutral and not assumed, she is free from 
any possible charge of contraband. The capture of such a vessel in any 
form would be resisted as a matter of essential principle by us (i.e., Eng- 
land) and by all neutral powers." 

It is not my purpose to point out the international inconsistencies 
of some other nation. Were it so, a comment might be made with 
reference to England's present views: to her action before our entry 
into the war, in stopping our ships and Dutch and Norwegian ships 
sailing from our ports to Holland and to Norway, and seizing non- 
contraband cargo destined to Holland, to Denmark, and to Norway 
and Sweden. 

Note, therefore, that our people were in 1861 almost unanimously 
prepared to fight to overturn the doctrine which they fought to estab- 
lish in 1812. Fortunately the Initiative and Referendum, the immedi- 
ate decision of matters of state by popular vote, was not then in vogue. 
We had a cool-headed minister to England — -Charles Francis Adams; 
we had a logical Secretary of State — Seward; we had a serene and 
level-headed president, Lincoln; and so, notwithstanding the thanks 
to Captain Wilkes of the Secretary of the Navy and of Congress; and 
notwithstanding the plaudits and the universal acclaim of the American 
people because of their seizure. Mason and Slidell were returned to 
England; but not until after the British Government had demanded 
their liberation and a suitable apology for our aggression. Meanwhile, 
and before the liberation, many of the British people had been just as 
anxious for war as our own. Some 8000 soldiers were gathered to- 
gether in Canada and a large fleet was prepared to sail against us. 

Our people were in 1861 maintaining an attitude inconsistent with 
the principles for which we fought in 1812, and only the coolness of a 
few persons saved us from an inconsistent war. 



Let us consider another inconsistency from which we were not 
saved, although there was no war with reference to it. By our law an 
alien is a person bom of foreign parents in a foreign country, and who 
has not been naturahzed. The very definition of an alien shows our 
inconsistency; the necessary conflict if other nations make the like 
claim. 

In accordance with this definition, the United States Supreme 
Court has decided that a child bom in this country, of Chinese parents, 
is a citizen of this country. There are certain exceptions to this rule, 
which, however, are not important for our purpose. For example, 
children of ambassadors are not claimed by us. This is on the theory 
that ambassadors and ministers of foreign countries carry with them 
under their feet their country's land. Whether we would claim as a 
citizen, a child born here of parents who were merely passing through 
the country, has not been finally decided. But you will readily see 
from the definition of an alien, that if an English couple residing in 
Boston have a child here which we claim, and an American couple 
residing in London have a child there which we also claim, if England 
made the same legal claims, the child would necessarily be a citizen of 
both countries. The claims are absolutely inconsistent. 

Nor do we limit our inconsistencies relative to citizenship merely 
to the place of birth. The United States Constitution gives Congress 
full control of establishing laws for naturalization, and so of providing 
that aliens may become citizens of this country. 

Not many years ago we threatened vengeance on Turkey because 
Turkey demanded the military service of naturalized American citizens 
who had left Turkey, become naturalized here, and then returned to 
the place of their birth. And yet the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court solemnly decided in 1813 that allegiance to the government of 
the country of one's birth cannot be discharged by naturalization in a 
foreign country, and that his duties to his native country remain un- 
changed and unencumbered by such naturalization. (Ainslee v. Martin, 
9 MASS. 454.) Because a Russian Consul in New York enunciated the 
same doctrine, a howl of outrage was raised in Congress, and echoed 
throughout the newspaper press of our country. "0 consistency, thou 
art indeed a jewel!", — but rarely found among the American people! 

Fortunately the most serious of the inconsistencies with reference 
to citizenship, which might otherwise easily lead to war, have been 
largely regulated by treaties with different countries, which treaties 
provide with considerable detail for the rights of citizens of the one 



country temporarily in another country, and to a certain extent provide 
for a means of determining who are citizens, within the meaning of the 
treaties. 

Let us take up another matter. According to the accepted max- 
ims of International Law: — if indeed there be such a thing as Inter- 
national Law — which by many authorities is considered doubtful — ■ 
every sovereign nation has the power as inherent in sovereignty and 
essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within 
its domains, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such condi- 
tions as it may see fit to prescribe. 

I may be pardoned if I express some doubt as to the existence of 
International Law when I tell you that a couple of years ago I endeav- 
ored to secure for the Boston University Law School certain lectures 
on International Law, by David Jajme Hill, one of the most accom- 
plished and learned of the American diplomats, who has represented this 
country in various foreign courts. His reply to me was: "There is no 
international law. No nation has ever observed what has heretofore 
been called International Law, except when it suited its convenience 
so to do." 

Nevertheless, practically all nations have universally agreed or 
assented to the doctrine that each nation could determine for itself who 
should be admitted within its domain ; and this upon the same principle 
which determines your right to admit as a visitor, as a servant, or as a 
resident into your house, only those persons whom you choose. It is 
purely a matter of individual taste for you to determine for yourself and 
without interference from your neighbor, whether you will admit a 
bald-headed gentleman into your home. 

It is under this principle that, notwithstanding our treaties of 
friendship with China and Japan, we exercise an extensive, indeed an 
almost universal right, of excluding the Mongolian. It is under the 
same principle, notwithstanding our friendly treaties with practically 
all other nations such as Great Britain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Nor- 
way, Sweden, etc., we have made it unlawful to assist the importation 
of any alien laborers under any contract to perform labor or service. 
Our law makes certain exceptions, e. g., domestic servants; but the ex- 
ceptions are not important for our discussion, although the exceptions 
to a certain extent furnish some amusement. For example, under this 
law there was a prosecution for bringing in a minister of the gospel, and, 
in the lower court, the Church of the Holy Trinity was convicted of 
crime for importing a rector. The Supreme Court of the United States 



reversed the decision and made a clear distinction between laboring in 
the Vineyard of the Lord, and laboring on a dairy farm. 

Notice, therefore, that we discriminate against certain citizens of 
foreign countries, viz: those who have a yellow-colored skin, and those 
who have contracted to labor in this country. We forbid their entrance 
and we provide that if they get in they may be deported, and this with- 
out any right of trial by jury. In other words, they have not the right 
of citizens, nor of guests ; — they are not to be admitted. 

But when some other country attempts to exclude one of our citi- 
zens, our conduct exhibits all of the lack of liberality without any of the 
good nature which was indicated by the conversation between Father 
Kelly, a good priest, and Rabbi Levy, with whom Father Kelly was on 
the best of terms. They were seated at dinner where some delicious 
roast ham was served. Presently Father Kelly turned to the Rabbi 
and facetiously said: "Rabbi, when are you going to become liberal 
enough to eat ham?"; and the Rabbi, with equal good-nature and wit, 
answered: "At your wedding, Father Kelly." 

I have already told you that much of the inconsistency and diffi- 
culty with reference to the rights of citizens in foreign countries was 
regulated by treaties. A few years ago one of these treaties, viz: one 
with Russia, was abrogated by the United States. That treaty pro- 
vided, among other things, that the inhabitants of the respective coun- 
tries shall be at liberty to reside in all parts of the countries in order to 
attend to their affairs, "and they shall enjoy to that effect the same 
security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, 
on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there pre- 
vailing." 

Russia, before allowing any foreigner to enter its domain, required 
that his passport should be vised by a Russian Consul. This vise will 
not be granted without a statement of the religion of the applicant. I 
hold no brief for Russia, and I quite agree with the majority of my fel- 
low citizens that it is distasteful and im- American that any man should 
be asked his reUgious beliefs as a pre-requisite to his gaining or holding 
or asserting his rights as a citizen. But what does our country do? 
"With an impulsiveness and inconsistency which has too frequently 
characterized our diplomacy, a resolution was introduced in Congress 
stating that Russia had violated her treaty with us, and demanding its 
abrogation. This resolution passed Congress with only one dissenting 
vote — that of our present Governor. At present, therefore, and for 
years, we have had no treaty with Russia securing the rights of citizens, 



and any exchange of courtesy by the one nation to the citizens of the 
other, is merely a matter of comity and friendship. Russia is the only 
great foreign nation with which we have no such treaty, excepting of 
course the nation with which we are at war. Prior to our break with 
Germany, Russia was the one nation with which we were, in the diplo- 
matic sense, most nearly at war. 

Russia treated the American Jew exactly the same as she treated 
the English, the Austrian and the German Jew, and better than she 
treated her own Russian Jews. There was no discrimination against 
Americans. There was, however, discrimination against Jews. 

You will observe that not only did we abrogate our treaty with 
Russia, leaving the Jews and all our other citizens without the protec- 
tion theretofore existing, but we insultingly stated that Russia had 
violated her treaty with us; in other words, we branded Russia as a 
contract breaker. You should, however, also have in mind that from 
the words of the treaty or contract made in 1832, Russia agreed only 
that our citizens should enjoy the same security and protection as 
native Russians, and only on condition of their submitting to the laws 
and ordinances there prevailing. It is at least disputable whether 
Russia really broke the treaty ; that would be a fair matter for judicial 
decision. If you have made a contract with another individual and he 
does something which you think he has no right to do under the con- 
tract, is it dignified, courteous or just for you to proclaim him a contract 
breaker? You have a right to bring the question before the proper 
tribunal for decision as to whether you or he is right. Contemplate, 
however, our inconsistency as to just such matters with reference to 
Mongolians. We say to China, Japan, and even to Russia: "These 
yellow-skinned citizens of yours cannot enter." If we are asked why, 
as I have already stated, it is sufficient answer to them to say: "Because 
we choose to keep them out; we do not like yellow skins; we don't 
like people who contract to labor." And when Japan protests, we, 
especially in California, shriek that this is an outrageous interference 
with our labor law, and with our laborers. 

Please don't misimderstand me. Personally I think Russia's ex- 
clusion of the Jews was unreasonable and should have been overcome. 
It has, however, not been overcome, and our method of trying to over- 
come it seems to me to be erroneous, undiplomatic and unjust. 

Consider another matter. Only a few months ago American citi- 
zens were requested to keep out of Mexico, and those who were already 
there were requested to leave during Mexico's so-called war. Some of 



us may differ as to whether this was wise. I am not here to discuss 
that question, though personally I think it was wise. I would rather 
have our nation too slow in avenging even a death, than to have it un- 
necessarily plunge into a cataclysm which engulfs many lives. We 
declined to protect the lives or the vested property rights and homes of 
our citizens who, acting under our treaty with Mexico, had established 
themselves and their business in that country; and we notified them to 
go out and keep out, both because we deemed that notice necessary for 
their own safety, and also for the peace and safety of our nation while 
Mexico was at war. 

Then came the war in Europe; and we refused to request Ameri- 
cans not to travel on belligerent English ships. Many of our citizens 
wanted us to go to war against Germany because our citizens were 
molested and killed while on belligerent ships, even though those ships 
were engaged in carrying munitions of war to kill Germans. Hundreds 
of Americans were killed in Mexico ; thousands were driven from their 
Mexican homes and businesses, compared with a few score who were 
killed or inconvenienced by the German sinking of British steamers. 
Our Government, this time consistently, declined to be rushed into war 
for such cause, although it seems to most of us that the action of both 
Mexico and Germany was a violation of our rights. 

Consider another inconsistency. We made a national protest to 
Turkey because their mobs killed Armenian citizens of Turkey. In 
this country negroes are killed singly and en bloc; sometimes they are 
burned alive. Imagine the state of our feelings if some European 
country should protest to us because of our "barbarous massacres!" 

We have now embarked upon another inconsistency. For many 
years the Monroe Doctrine, so-called, has been formally asserted as a 
principle necessary to our national safety. It is difficult to define, and 
it has varied somewhat according to diplomatic expediency. Practi- 
cally, however, it has amounted to the assertion that no non-American 
country should be permitted to gain additional territory or to interfere 
with governmental rights in either North or South America. To be 
consistent we should of course assent that we will not interfere with 
the Governmental rights of other countries across the seas. 

Still! We have seized the Philippines, and established a system of 
government there; and now we are engaged in a great war; our sol- 
diers are in Europe, and it has been practically asserted by our Presi- 
dent, that the Government of our enemy must be changed. That is, 
the President has stated that we could not make peace with the Gov- 

10 



ernment of Germany without "further assurances" tha^^the present 
Government of Germany can give. 

Germany has deeply outraged and wronged us. The question of 
when our nation ought to go to war because our rights have been vio- 
lated and our people outraged, is not always easily answered to the 
satisfaction of everyone. The question to be determined before going 
to war is : Have the wrongs reached a stage where they are unendurable ? 
If they have reached that stage, then under present, somewhat uncivi- 
lized world conditions, there seems to be no remedy but war. But 
every national wrong does not demand war. We have already referred 
to the Mexican wrongs; to the German sinking of Americans on Eng- 
lish ships, neither of which brought war. There have been other such 
examples. 

Thus England violated our rights before we joined in the war. She 
asserted domination over the sea. On November 2, 1914, she gave 
orders closing the North Sea, and notified us to travel there on certain 
designated routes only, although it has heretofore been regarded as 
settled International Law (if there be any International Law) , that all 
of the open sea more than three marine miles from shore was a free 
highway over which all neutrals should have an unhindered right of 
travel. Two of our vessels, the SS. CARIB and the SS. EVELYN, 
wandered from the English appointed paths and were sunk, with the 
loss of the lives of American citizens. We protested rather mildly, and, 
so far as I know, no sane person wanted war, though our property was 
destroyed and our citizens killed. The mildness of our protest for these 
grievous wrongs encouraged Germany to believe that she might herself 
apply to the greater area of the whole Atlantic Ocean, the illegal re- 
strictions which Great Britain applied to the North Sea, and Germany 
arrogantly notified us just where and how frequently we would be per- 
mitted to travel in the Atlantic, and then sunk our ships which did not 
comply with her orders. 

The action of England above outlined was a violation of our rights. 
The action of Germany was far more extensive; a far greater violation 
of and injury to our rights ; it was far more arrogant in its manner ; it was 
infinitely more malignant in its execution. There is a marked difiference 
between one of our ships running on a mine which has been planted, 
even though no one had a right to plant it there, and the malicious lying 
in wait for one of our ships and then intentionally torpedoing that ship 
and killing the passengers and crew. We would have had a right to go 
to war with England because of what she did. We sensibly did not 



do so. We certainly were justified in going to war with Germany for 
the greater wrongs which she committed. The proper constitutional 
authorities have decided that these wrongs passed all endurance and 
that war was demanded. We are now engaged in that war, and it is 
our duty, and ultimately it will be to our advantage, to sacrifice every- 
thing necessary to carry out that war manfully and successfully. 
Prior to our declaration of a state of war, we of course had a right to 
discuss the question of whether our participation therein was necessary, 
wise or expedient. At that time honest and loyal patriots might 
properly differ; but after the proper constitutional authorities decided 
that question, it was no longer open for discussion. He who cannot, or 
will not, cheerfully accept and loyally support a final decision properly 
made by any Constitutional authority, is not fit to be a citizen of a 
republic or a democracy. He ought to have no right to participate in 
government. Anyone who now opposes or obstructs the war, whether 
it be by inducing men not to enlist, or by opposing the draft, or by in- 
citing strikes which embarrass production or distribution of ammunition 
and other supplies is disloyal; is in effect a traitor. 

The attempt by some persons to discuss the constitutionality of 
drafting soldiers to fight in foreign lands strikes me as inconsistent and 
almost, if not entirely, disloyal. Think of it! The Constitution says 
the Congress shall have power to declare war. It is insufficient and 
poor warfare, it is ridiculous warfare, which insists that the fighting 
shall be only on our own property; that our property should be de- 
stroyed, but the enemy's property uninjured. War is hateful, and 
when possible should be avoided; but, when once entered, should be so 
conducted as to inflict a maximimi of damage to the enemy with a mini- 
mum of damage to ourselves. If anyone's neck must have boils, I 
prefer that it should be my enemy's neck. His is the least objection- 
able neck. If I must fight, I prefer to attack my enemy when he is 
weakest, and when I have others to help me; not to wait until he 
catches me out alone on a night when he is in fuU strength. 

Chief Justice Taney, writing the opinion for the Supreme Court of 
the United States, in the case of Fleming v. Page, 9 How 603, 615, 
said: as commander-in-chief, "He (the President) may invade the 
hostile country and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the 
United States." 

Furthermore, whatever one may have thought before we entered 
the war, if, under present circumstances, Germany should win, she 
would be the ruler of the world; — which as I stated early in my remarks, 

12 



would be a calamity too great to be endured. We are confronted by a 
real peril, which must be met with the whole-hearted allegiance of every 
citizen. Every one of us must earnestly, yea — enthusiastically, sup- 
port our Army and Navy. 

But supporting the Army and Navy does not mean that we must 
adopt illogical views as to political aims, even if they are advocated by 
our President. I see no occasion for action so inconsistent with our 
Monroe Doctrine, as for us to attempt to dictate what form of govern- 
ment any peoples of Europe should adopt. That is none of our business. 
The Monroe Doctrine more nearly affects our stabiHty and prosperity 
than does the form of government of any European nation. We have 
a big enough job to see that our own people are properly governed, our 
citizens protected and the governments of other American countries 
not interfered with. 

Let us, therefore, now prepare for peace terms which will secure an 
abiding peace; let us see that it is a peace to the honest advantage of 
the United States and the whole world, and not merely a peace to the 
advantage of a dominating ally. Let it be a peace of right and not of 
might; of justice, not merely of power. If possible, let us enforce an 
agreement for substantial disarmament, not only on the land as applied 
to Germany and all other countries, but on sea as applied to England 
and all other countries. Let us have neither German nor English 
domination on either land or sea. Let us provide for a peace which 
will guarantee that no nation will again dictate to us or to others, or try 
to dominate over us in the exercise of our rights. Let us secure the 
actual observance of and obedience to the doctrine which, even while 
they violate it, both England and Germany profess to desire, viz: the 
freedom of the seas; especially the right of all neutrals to travel the 
world's watery highway without hindrance or molestation. 

But, to my mind, the task is incomplete, the future is not secure, 
unless we also obtain a world tribunal of justice to decide international 
disputes, to lay down and then to enforce real International Law, with 
enough united force to compel compliance with its decrees and with the 
necessary power to enforce the disarmament agreement. To prevent 
Germany from winning is merely temporarily to save ourselves, until 
some other powerful nation disregards International Law and tramples 
on our rights. If we want to snatch a real benefit from the world dis- 
aster, we must secure an agreement for substantial disarmament and 
an international court to decide all disputes. This is really worth 
fighting for. 



Let us go on with the war. I quote Lincoln, with a change of one 
word: With maHce toward none; with charity for all; with firmness 
in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the 
work we are in, to bind up this world's wounds; to do all which may- 
achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with 
all nations. 

This is not a mere dream. It can be done. We must first beat 
Germany into a permanent realization that its Army cannot win ; that 
Germany cannot dominate the world. But at the peace discussion — 
for ultimately that must come — we must try to have Great Britain 
appreciate that this was the world's victory, for justice and against 
wrong; not England's for commercial aggrandizement or colonial con- 
quest. The nations will be nearly bankrupt. Even now there are 
parties in England which mean to repudiate the State and Municipal 
debts of that country. These parties are so powerful that the London 
Times says they "have the Government by the throat." I dislike to 
believe, I hardly can believe, that they will succeed. Honest persons 
will be willing to subordinate almost everything else to making pro- 
vision for the payment of national debts ; — the maintenance of national 
honor. The best way to rehabilitate the weak financial condition 
will be to stop spending money for military and naval purposes. Argu- 
ments in favor of disarmament were popular before this war, and 
nearly every one favored disarmament. Now nearly everyone says we 
must have Universal Military Service. That is, we must have all our 
young men who ought to be producers, or preparing to become pro- 
ducers, go into military training and be mere consumers preparing for 
destruction. Those ante bellum arguments for disarmament have now 
lost their popularity; they have not lost their potency. The trouble 
is that the pendulum swung too far towards disarmament; now it has 
swung too far the other way. So long as other nations are perpetually 
prepared for war, we also must be prepared. The man who, here in 
Massachusetts, goes around with a pistol in his pocket is foolish, 
is reckless, and invites trouble. The man who in former days, 
in the mining regions of the West, did not carry a pistol was 
foolish and reckless and invited disaster. If all persons and gov- 
ernments would unite in being prepared for peace and the orderly en- 
forcement of the decrees of the Court, it would be infinitely better for 
all. And yet, even here in Massachusetts, we need a few armed 
policemen. It ought to be possible to agree that each nation shall be 
allowed to have a certain limited maximum number of soldiers and 
trained men, and limited ships of war; that each nation must have a 
minimum of soldiers or ships ; to agree to provide for a World Court to 

14 



determine whether any nation violates this agreement or otherwise 
wrongs any other nation; to provide that no nation shall make any 
alliance with any other without the public approval of this World Court; 
and that all of the soldiers and ships of all nations shall be used to 
police the world and enforce the decrees of the World Court. 

Had there been such a World Court in the summer of 1914, when 
Austria made its unreasonable demands on Serbia, and if such Court 
had notified Austria that it would hear and determine the punishment 
to be given Serbia for its improper conduct towards Austria, and that 
all the force of France, Russia, Great Britain, Japan, the United States, 
Norway, Sweden, Holland and South America, would put down any 
display of force or fighting, there now would be no war. Austria 
would not have dared to insist upon its demand. Neither Austria nor 
Germany appreciated the extent of the military power which they have 
since exhibited. 

My friends, our country has sometimes been illogical and incon- 
sistent. These var3nng and inconsistent views and actions are not 
good for us; they are not good for the world; they are not healthy. 
We ought, even in international affairs, approximate the Golden Rule 
of doing unto others as we would have others do unto us. And we 
ought to be glad to welcome a World Court which could enforce that 
rule as well against us as against all others. It is the duty of every one 
of us to try to learn the real truth, and then to act in behalf of our coun- 
try, calmly, with reason and with logic. Mobs are governed by emo- 
tion; — nations ought to be governed by reason. The deception which 
most injures us is self-deception. Those who cannot see their own wrongs 
are the worst of sinners, for they do not see where they should improve. 
On the other hand, I would not have you think that I do not appreciate, 
that I would not have you appreciate, the great and, everything con- 
sidered, good country in which we live. On the whole our nation has 
given a creditable and a glorious example of self-government. Like 
everything human, it has made some mistakes, but it has accomplished 
much for liberty, for freedom, for constitutional self-restraint, and for 
human progress. 

Therefore, in closing, I offer you a toast — a combination of two old 
toasts, neither of which, alone, has ever satisfied me: "My country, 
may she always be right; when not right, may she be set right; but 
finally, right or wrong, my country!" 



THE 

DUNBAR KERR 

COMPANY 

MALOEN. MASS. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



018 465 789 2 




